X

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.
The full case caption appears at the end of this opinion. This appeal presents the question whether Texas state partnership law is preempted by 26 U.S.C. �� 6671-72, two sections of the Internal Revenue Code (“I.R.C.”) that govern the assessment and collection of penalties for an employer’s failure to withhold and remit taxes from employees’ wages. [FOOTNOTE 2] Finding no conflict between the state and federal laws and no congressional intent to preempt state partnership law, we conclude that the state law has not been preempted. The judgment of the district court is therefore affirmed. I. FACTS & PROCEEDINGS Plaintiff-Appellant William P. Remington was a partner in the law firm Paxton, Barriball & Remington, a Texas general partnership (the “partnership”). In 1986, Remington discovered that employment tax returns (Form 941) had not been prepared and submitted when due and that the related trust fund taxes had not been paid. He hired a certified public accountant to prepare the returns which Remington then signed and submitted. He did not, though, pay the tax liability. Consequently, the IRS assessed the taxes and filed liens against the partnership and against Remington “as [a] general partner.” After the IRS levied on Remington’s property to satisfy its lien, he filed suit for wrongful levy. The IRS counterclaimed, seeking to collect from Remington the remainder of the trust fund taxes owed by the partnership. The parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment, after which the district court granted the government’s and denied Remington’s. Remington timely appealed. II. ANALYSIS A. Jurisdiction We have jurisdiction over appeals from final judgments of the district court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. � 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. [FOOTNOTE 3] Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings and summary judgment evidence present no genuine issue of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgement as a matter of law. [FOOTNOTE 4] This appeal presents questions of law only; there are no genuine disputes of material fact. B. Preemption Remington insists that the IRS cannot proceed against a general partner under state partnership law to collect federal taxes that a partnership should have but did not withhold from employees’ wages and remit to the IRS. More specifically, Remington argues that, taken together, I.R.C. �� 6671(b) and 6672(a) are incompatible with, and therefore preempt, the provision of the Texas Uniform Partnership Act that makes partners jointly and severally liable for the debts of the partnership. Remington concludes that when the IRS seeks to collect a partnership’s payroll-related tax debt from a partner, its exclusive remedy is the one set forth in I.R.C. � 6672. Like the other courts that have considered this argument, we find it to be wholly without merit. [FOOTNOTE 5] Employers are required to withhold and remit federal taxes from the wages of their employees. If an employer fails to pay over these trust fund taxes when due, it “shall be liable for the payment of the tax required to be deducted and withheld . . . .” [FOOTNOTE 6] In the instant case, the employer was the partnership, and Remington does not dispute that he was a general partner in that partnership. Under � 15 of the Texas Uniform Partnership Act, [FOOTNOTE 7] “[a]ll partners are liable jointly and severally for all debts and obligations of the partnership . . . .” Accordingly, under Texas law, the IRS is entitled to collect the trust fund tax liability, indisputably a partnership debt, from any one of the general partners, including Remington. [FOOTNOTE 8] The partnership is the primary obligor and its partners are jointly and severally liable on its debts. Nothing in I.R.C. �� 6671 and 6672 changes this result. Under these provisions, a “penalty” equal to the amount of the tax that should have been collected and remitted is imposed on the responsible person or persons who willfully failed to collect and remit the tax. [FOOTNOTE 9] These provisions were enacted primarily to deal with the problem of the insolvent corporate tax debtor. Unlike general partners, who are jointly and severally liable for partnership debts, the owners and managers of a corporation —- its shareholders, directors, and officers —- are generally shielded from personal liability to creditors by state corporation law. Experience has taught that when a corporation was approaching insolvency, there would be too great a temptation to pay corporate creditors out of the funds that were supposed to be held in trust for the government. It is likely that this experience and others influenced Congress to enact �� 6671-72. It is true that by their terms I.R.C. �� 6671-72 apply to all types of business organizations, from the sole proprietorship to the general partnership to the multinational corporation. In some cases, such as the general partnership, the provisions create an alternative source of responsibility to the one already imposed by state law. In other cases, such as the business corporation, the provision imposes additional responsibility that supplements liability imposed by state law. We discern no indication that Congress intended to eliminate or restrict state law liability for the payment of trust fund taxes; the only indication we find is to the contrary, i.e., that �� 6671-72 were intended to create an additional avenue for the collection of trust fund taxes. Moreover, If Remington’s preemption argument were accepted, then the IRS, as a creditor, would stand in a worse position vis-a-vis a general partnership than would any other creditor of that partnership. All creditors other than the IRS could look to the joint and several liability of the partners to collect a partnership debt from any one or more of them; but, the IRS would only be able to collect the outstanding tax debt from the partnership itself or from the partner or partners —- not necessarily all partners —- responsible for withholding the trust fund taxes. Unlike every other creditor, the IRS would not be allowed to collect the partnership debt from a general partner who was not a responsible person under I.R.C. �� 6671-72. This result would run contrary to the very purpose of �� 6671-72, namely, “to facilitate, not restrict, the collection of these important trust fund taxes.” [FOOTNOTE 10] We conclude that I.R.C. � 6672(a) is an alternative or supplemental collection provision, not a preempting substitute for primary responsibility under state law. We find nothing to suggest that Congress intended for that section of the I.R.C. to preempt state partnership law. Neither is there a conflict between state and federal law that would render compliance with both impossible. [FOOTNOTE 11] We hold, therefore, that I.R.C. �� 6671-72 do not preempt � 15 of the Texas Uniform Partnership Act; rather they complement it. C. Time Bar Remington also contends that the IRS did not timely initiate collection. The IRS is required to initiate collection within ten years following assessment of the tax. [FOOTNOTE 12] Remington urges that the taxes were “assessed” when the return was filed and that the date on which the return was filed is a disputed fact. If this dispute were resolved in his favor, Remington argues, it would establish that the IRS did not initiate its collection effort within ten years, making its effort to collect the taxes time-barred. In short, Remington maintains that there is a disputed issue of material fact that precludes summary judgment. Although it is true that the filing of a return starts the running of the three-year period within which the IRS can assess taxes, [FOOTNOTE 13] I.R.C. � 6502(a)(1) makes clear that it is the “assessment” itself that, once made, starts the running of the ten-year period within which the IRS can commence efforts to collect an assessed tax. The law is well established that the filing of a return does not constitute the assessment of the tax: “The ‘assessment,’ essentially a bookkeeping notation, is made when the Secretary or his delegate establishes an account against the taxpayer on the tax rolls.” [FOOTNOTE 14] In this case there is no dispute about the date of the assessment; accordingly, even if there is a disputed issue of fact regarding the date that Remington filed his return, that fact does not affect the date of the assessment and therefore is not material to the resolution of this case. As such, it does not preclude summary judgment. III. CONCLUSION We hold that the IRS timely initiated collection proceedings and that I.R.C. �� 6671-72 do not preempt state partnership law. The judgment of the district court is, in all respects :::FOOTNOTES::: FN1 Judge John M. Shaw, District Judge of the Western District of Louisiana, was a member of the panel that heard oral arguments but because of his death on December 24, 1999, he did not participate in this decision. This case is being decided by quorum. 28 U.S.C. � 46(d). FN2Several provisions of the I.R.C. require employers to collect taxes from their employees. The most significant are I.R.C. �� 3102(a) (FICA) and 3402(a) (federal income tax). The withheld sums are commonly referred to as “trust fund taxes” because such collected sums are deemed to be a “special fund in trust for the United States.” I.R.C. � 7501(a); see also Slodov v. United States, 436 U.S. 238, 242-43 (1979). FN3 See Estate of Bonner v. United States, 84 F.3d 196 (5th Cir.1996). FN4 See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317 (1986). FN5 See Livingston v. United States, 793 F. Supp. 251 (D. Idaho 1992); Baily v. United States, 355 F. Supp. 325 (E.D. Pa. 1973). FN6 I.R.C. � 3403. FN7 Tex. Civ. Stat. Ann. art. 6132b � 15. FN8 See Ballard v. United States, 17 F.3d 116, 118 (5th Cir. 1994) (“state law . . . determines when a partner is liable for the obligations —- including employment taxes —- of his partnership.”). FN9 See generally Mazo v. United States, 591 F.2d 1151 (1979). FN10 Livingston v. United States, 793 F. Supp. 251, 254 (D. Idaho 1992). FN11 See California v. ARC America Corp., 490 U.S. 93 (1989). FN12 See I.R.C. � 6502(a). FN13 See I.R.C. � 6501. FN14 See Laing v. United States, 423 U.S. 161, 170 n.13 (1976); see also I.R.C. � 6203; 26 C.F.R. � 301.6203-1.
Remington v. United States United State Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit No. 98-11328 WILLIAM P. REMINGTON, Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellant, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellee. Appeal From: United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas April 13, 2000 Before: WIENER and STEWART, Circuit Judges. [FOOTNOTE 1]
 
Reprints & Licensing
Mentioned in a Law.com story?

License our industry-leading legal content to extend your thought leadership and build your brand.

More From ALM

Premium Subscription

With this subscription you will receive unlimited access to high quality, online, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry. This is perfect for attorneys licensed in multiple jurisdictions or for attorneys that have fulfilled their CLE requirement but need to access resourceful information for their practice areas.
View Now

Team Accounts

Our Team Account subscription service is for legal teams of four or more attorneys. Each attorney is granted unlimited access to high quality, on-demand premium content from well-respected faculty in the legal industry along with administrative access to easily manage CLE for the entire team.
View Now

Bundle Subscriptions

Gain access to some of the most knowledgeable and experienced attorneys with our 2 bundle options! Our Compliance bundles are curated by CLE Counselors and include current legal topics and challenges within the industry. Our second option allows you to build your bundle and strategically select the content that pertains to your needs. Both options are priced the same.
View Now

Elite Trial Lawyers 2021

July 29, 2021
Virtual

The National Law Journal Elite Trial Lawyers recognizes U.S.-based law firms performing exemplary work on behalf of plaintiffs.


Register

BenefitsPRO Broker Expo 2021

May 18, 2021 - August 18, 2021
Virtual / San Diego, CA

The premier educational and networking event for employee benefits brokers and agents.


Register

African Legal Awards 2021

September 03, 2021
TBD

The African Legal Awards are set out to recognise exceptional achievement from Africa s legal elite.


Register

Legal Secretary- Experienced

Miami, Florida, United States

Miami Law Firm seeks experienced Legal Secretary withminimum 5+ years experience in Plaintiff's Personal Injury for busy law practice.Comput...


Apply Now ›

Senior Attorney

Long Island City, New York, United States

NEW YORK CITY SCHOOL CONSTRUCTION AUTHORITY                 ...


Apply Now ›

E-Discovery Attorney - California (remote)

REMOTE, California, United States

TEMPORARY/FULL-TIME/SHORT-TERM:  Do you have some free time in the next few weeks?   If so, we can help you utilize it! ...


Apply Now ›

VAN DER VEEN, O NEILL, HARTSHORN, AND LEVIN

07/27/2021
TLI Web

VAN DER VEEN, O NEILL, HARTSHORN, AND LEVIN is pleased to welcome Frank Breitman, Esq. a talented and respected litigator to our ranks of trial lawyers.


View Announcement ›

HARWOOD LLOYD, LLC

07/26/2021
NJLJ Web

HARWOOD LLOYD, LLC Welcomes Beth L. Barnhard, Esq. Beth has joined the firm as Counsel in the Wills, Trusts and Estates Department. She is Certified to be an Elder Law Attorney (CELA) by the ABAaccredited National Elder Law Foundation.


View Announcement ›

SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO MACERI & DACOSTA

07/26/2021
NJLJ Web

SNYDER SARNO D'ANIELLO MACERI & DACOSTA is Proud to Announce the opening of New Morristown Office!


View Announcement ›